Aparently a WG aircraft got caught by Mr Murphy and the crew and pax were stuck for close to 13 hours on the plane in YYZ due to some mechanical issues and deice issues all cause by the snow in YYZ yesterday.

"At about 10:30 a.m., the cabin crew had handed out water and granola bars — the only refreshments available."

"“No food, no water, except for two packages each, at four-hour intervals, of corn chips, and one half glass of water,” passenger Sherry Tamilia told the Star."

Whats wrong with that? They are not a supermarket, the article says the plane couldnt return to gate because none were available. The aircraft had ice build ups on the cowlings. What should they do? Disembark on the tarmac?

"At about 10:30 a.m., the cabin crew had handed out water and granola bars — the only refreshments available."

"“No food, no water, except for two packages each, at four-hour intervals, of corn chips, and one half glass of water,” passenger Sherry Tamilia told the Star."

Whats wrong with that? They are not a supermarket, the article says the plane couldnt return to gate because none were available. The aircraft had ice build ups on the cowlings. What should they do? Disembark on the tarmac?

Lets be realistic here.

They should have been brought back to the terminal using all those old buses they have parked that use to transport people to the midfield terminal. Water and granola bars, well that just doesn't cut it. I thought that WG would have more sense then that.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 3):They could've just brought them back to the terminal until the queues died down a bit.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 4):They should have been brought back to the terminal using all those old buses they have parked that use to transport people to the midfield terminal. Water and granola bars, well that just doesn't cut it. I thought that WG would have more sense then that.

Oh yeah of course! During a snow storm, when ops are limited.

Why didnt I think of that......?

And if you're going to blame WG, surely the airfield should take responsibility too. After all, they run ops.

After 12 hours on the ground there'd probably be a good case for being held against your will... And a good excuse to pull the emergency chute and settle it in court. Can add the safety issue of crews timing out into the argument as well... As im sure they knew they couldnt fly after what the 8th hour? Someone should have got a staircase there to deplane at minimum.

I understand no gates were available but for 13 hours? That means no gates were ever free the entire time to move an aircraft to deboard. I'm sure there were plenty of planes just sitting there that could have been moved. Even getting airstairs and busses could have done the trick. Things get busy and I know there was a snowstorm but there is no excuse for this. I understand 2 or 3 hours, but 13? That is beyond excessive. Especially at a time when ops were very limited.
Pat

Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club

Actually, they did go back to a gate to clear ice off the engine cowlings. At that point, it should have been obvious that it was going to be a while before they could get off the ground, and that the airline didn't have appropriate provisions on the plane to wait out the time on the ground (they're an LCC, so that's understandable, but then you have to adjust how you deal with delays). And even if they couldn't get the passengers directly into the terminal because of customs issues, it should have been easy to get some stairs to get them off the plane and some buses to get them to a terminal where they actually could get off. That was the time to get the passengers off, since it was clear the airport didn't have the resources to deal with the snowfall and the airplane didn't have the supplies to properly take care of the people during the inevitable extended ground sit.

I'm not a fan of the three hour rule, and if this were five or six hours I'd grudgingly accept it. But thirteen hours? That's too much.

This is so entertaining reading posts from those not involved with aviation and their outrage at some airline's misfortune with a major weather event. Like this is some conspiracy by the crew and airline against their passengers. Come on people. I imagine some of you must have an image of the flightcrew doing high fives in the flightdeck, that they're stuck in an ever worsening scenario that is preventing them doing their jobs of 'safely' getting their passengers to destination. That they are getting some perverse pleasure in entombing their pax for hours and hours. I'd be surprised if they weren't working overtime to solve the many issues thrown up yesterday.

Of course 13 hours is an incredible ground delay, but did some of you even read the article? This flight was beset by a number of delays all caused by a major weather, and safety must always come first. Would some of you be happy for the aircraft to depart with ice and snow on the wings, engine cowlings, brakes. Surely not!

I've been in similar situations a number of times in my career and it's not an easy time. These situations are extremely dynamic and frustrating for all concerned (not just the passengers). I certainly don't enjoy sitting on my arse for 2 or 3 hours waiting for a CTOT on a remote stand, which happens from time to time here in Europe.

Also it's not that easy to negotiate to return to the gate. This flight was an international flight with passengers cleared by customs. The airport authorities who incidentally make that decision (not the airline or pilots), are very reluctant to have cleared pax returned to the terminal. It's bad enough if the flight is domestic let alone international.
I recently sat in Greece for 6 hours waiting for a start-up clearance (due to a snap Greek ATC strike). I asked for the pax to be returned to the terminal, but the local authorities refused as it was full of other pax on other delayed flights that hadn't even arrived yet.

"At about 10:30 a.m., the cabin crew had handed out water and granola bars — the only refreshments available."

"“No food, no water, except for two packages each, at four-hour intervals, of corn chips, and one half glass of water,” passenger Sherry Tamilia told the Star."

Whats wrong with that? They are not a supermarket, the article says the plane couldnt return to gate because none were available. The aircraft had ice build ups on the cowlings. What should they do? Disembark on the tarmac?

Lets be realistic here.

Yeah. let's be realistic. No way should PAX be kept on a plane for so long. Both the airline and the airport are at fault here. Even if the plane was allowed to depart, the crew would have been out on hours surely? And no, the plane is not a supermarket, but it is supposed to be a pleasant place to travel.

That is all fine and dandy, but we are talking thirteen hours. If you cannot arrange for the pax to be offloaded in that amount of time, it is not weather, it is not conspiracy, it is not external problems, it is plain old total incompetence bordering with criminal negligence.

The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT

Quoting asctty (Reply 16):Yeah. let's be realistic. No way should PAX be kept on a plane for so long. Both the airline and the airport are at fault here. Even if the plane was allowed to depart, the crew would have been out on hours surely? And no, the plane is not a supermarket, but it is supposed to be a pleasant place to travel.

I dont think there would have been any airport that would have allowed them back, because they had cleared customs. Otherwise I am sure it would have been done.

I bet the crew was as uncomfortable as the pax, so why would they want to be there any longer than they had too.

Quoting Dogbreath (Reply 14):I certainly don't enjoy sitting on my arse for 2 or 3 hours waiting for a CTOT on a remote stand, which happens from time to time here in Europe.

There's 2 or 3 hours, and then there's 13. There's a huge difference between the two.

Quoting zkokq (Reply 18):I dont think there would have been any airport that would have allowed them back, because they had cleared customs. Otherwise I am sure it would have been done.

Not buying it. Let's say the weather wasn't an issue, but the plane had encountered a mechanical problem on its way to the runway and couldn't depart. Are you suggesting that the passengers would be kept on the plane for as long as it took to fix the problem, even for a day or two if the plane had to be taken out of service? And if not, then there's no reason that accommodations couldn't have also been made for this situation.

Quoting zkokq (Reply 18):Quoting asctty (Reply 16):
Yeah. let's be realistic. No way should PAX be kept on a plane for so long. Both the airline and the airport are at fault here. Even if the plane was allowed to depart, the crew would have been out on hours surely? And no, the plane is not a supermarket, but it is supposed to be a pleasant place to travel.

I don't think there would have been any airport that would have allowed them back, because they had cleared customs. Otherwise I am sure it would have been done.

I bet the crew was as uncomfortable as the pax, so why would they want to be there any longer than they had too.

They wouldn't have had to go through customs as that is before the gate. All they had to do was get the PAX inside the building and give them access to some decent amenities. It's called customer service.

BTW, does anyone know how long the intended flight was supposed to be?

OK then. So for my understanding of the law, can you please inform us of what is the cutoff before we start talking criminal negligence? Is it 4 hours, 6 hours, or what is it?

Quoting asctty (Reply 16):Even if the plane was allowed to depart, the crew would have been out on hours surely?

If it was a standard crew you are right, they'd have been out of hours. But we don't have enough facts here. Was the crew augmented? Did the aircraft indeed get back to a gate or have transport to allow a fresh crew onboard? Maybe the pax were asked at that time if any wanted to get off the flight and cancel their holiday? Maybe most decided to remain onboard and get the hell of winter and onto the sun baked beaches for their holidays?

Quoting zkokq (Reply 18):I bet the crew was as uncomfortable as the pax, so why would they want to be there any longer than they had too.

Quoting Mir (Reply 19):Not buying it. Let's say the weather wasn't an issue, but the plane had encountered a mechanical problem on its way to the runway and couldn't depart. Are you suggesting that the passengers would be kept on the plane for as long as it took to fix the problem, even for a day or two if the plane had to be taken out of service? And if not, then there's no reason that accommodations couldn't have also been made for this situation.

Quoting Dogbreath (Reply 21):If it was a standard crew you are right, they'd have been out of hours. But we don't have enough facts here. Was the crew augmented? Did the aircraft indeed get back to a gate or have transport to allow a fresh crew onboard?

All those questions are answered in the article.

No the crew was not augmented. Yes the aircraft did eventually make it back to a gate to get a new crew and the passengers were let off at that point. That still does not excuse sitting on the ground for 13 hours before even getting back to a gate (the flight eventually departed 17 hours behind schedule - this would be a non-issue if the passengers had been waiting in the terminal for the vast majority of the day instead of on the plane, and they would likely have gotten to their vacations at exactly the same time).

Quoting zkokq (Reply 22):If there wasn't a blizzard, then there is no issue IMO

Why should a blizzard make any difference at all as to whether you can let international departing passengers off a plane after they have cleared customs?

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 25):Because the gate was a US pre clear gate. You can't have pax mingle so you can't let them off.

Again, if the plane had had a mechanical, would they have kept the passengers on the plane until it was fixed no matter how long it took (perhaps overnight), or would they have found a way to get them off? And if they would have found a way to get them off in that situation, why should this one be any different?

Quoting Mir (Reply 27):Again, if the plane had had a mechanical, would they have kept the passengers on the plane until it was fixed no matter how long it took (perhaps overnight), or would they have found a way to get them off? And if they would have found a way to get them off in that situation, why should this one be any different?

The airport was at a stand still. You cant force 2 planes into one gate. And they wanted toi guarantee the safety of their passengers crew and ground crew.

Quoting Mir (Reply 19):Not buying it. Let's say the weather wasn't an issue, but the plane had encountered a mechanical problem on its way to the runway and couldn't depart. Are you suggesting that the passengers would be kept on the plane for as long as it took to fix the problem, even for a day or two if the plane had to be taken out of service? And if not, then there's no reason that accommodations couldn't have also been made for this situation.

There's a big difference between a maintenance delay and a weather delay. As you quite correctly point out a maintenance delay could mean an aircraft change or even a flight cancellation, so yes of course the pax would need to be returned to the terminal and deplaned. Under such circumstances as yesterday that might have meant a long delay whilst the airport finds a spare gate or remote spot for busses.
But in this case the aircraft wasn't unserviceable and was in the queue to be deiced for a safe departure. For various reasons this wasn't possible due to delays encountered with the deicing rig, engine cowl icing, brake icing, etc. So how do you convince the airport authorities to allow this aircraft to return to the gate for the pax to deplane and stretch their legs, go to a restaurant, etc, etc. How long a time do you allow? What's to say that after putting the pax back on the aircraft say 3 hours later, you now find that you're at the back of the queue again and it's another 3 hours on the tarmac awaiting your turn to the delayed deicing rig.
Who can fortell the dynamic nature of the weather and how this is going to effect operations? No-one.

Yes of course the best laid plans can backfire, but is this negligence. Yes, of course 13 hours is excessive. But blaming people and organisations for the problems caused by a weather event is a weak argument.

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 25):Quoting Mir (Reply 24):Why should a blizzard make any difference at all as to whether you can let international departing passengers off a plane after they have cleared customs?

Because the gate was a US pre clear gate. You can't have pax mingle so you can't let them off.

I'd really love to know if anyone even talked with the U.S CPD chief on duty to see if an exception could be made. In this regards common sense over policy might have won out.

If this article is correct, what a massive fail by YYZ for this to let happen.

Quoting zkokq (Reply 9):And how does one propose that happens when there are things going on like de-icing, planes moving AND a SNOW STORM?

Because any competent airport that runs winter operations has a plan in place to hande something like this.

They didn't have to. They had a gate available on which to park the plane (and park they did). If they can't let the passengers into that part of the terminal via jetway because of US Pre-Clearance rules, that's fine, but there are still ways to get people off the plane and to a different part of the terminal.

Quoting Dogbreath (Reply 29):Under such circumstances as yesterday that might have meant a long delay whilst the airport finds a spare gate or remote spot for busses.

The plane departed at 7am. At 1030am it was back at a parking stand for refueling and to clear ice from the engine cowling. At that point, it should have been obvious that unless the de-ice line got dramatically shorter, the same result was inevitable on the second attempt, but they still went out into a de-ice line that was longer than it was the first time (in other words, setting themselves up for failure, and fail they did).

Quoting Dogbreath (Reply 29):So how do you convince the airport authorities to allow this aircraft to return to the gate for the pax to deplane and stretch their legs, go to a restaurant, etc, etc.

Once they were at the gate, they should have told them "we cannot depart in these conditions due to your inability to run the de-ice facility at full capacity, so we are going to get these people off the plane until the line gets short enough; find a way to make it happen".

Quoting Dogbreath (Reply 29):What's to say that after putting the pax back on the aircraft say 3 hours later, you now find that you're at the back of the queue again and it's another 3 hours on the tarmac awaiting your turn to the delayed deicing rig.

This is why the airline's operations department needs to be calling the de-ice facility, ATC, or whoever would know what the de-ice queue is and asking about it. The PIC could do the same thing. And if the queue is too long to have a reasonable expectation of being able to depart (i.e. as long or longer than it was the last time you tried and ran out of fuel and iced up the engine inlets), then wait until it isn't. ESPECIALLY since you know that your options for returning to a parking stand a second time are limited - if there were a whole slew of gates available with easy access if something went wrong, that would be a different story.

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 25):Because the gate was a US pre clear gate. You can't have pax mingle so you can't let them off.

But I am sure they can guard the passengers towards the departure area again so they don't enter Canada or leave the US cleared space, then they don't mingle in any different way then they do after they were cleared in the first place. Or am I missing something?

I bet some politicians in Canada, as done here in the USA after some major winter storm delay holds, will put in new laws or require improvements in current laws to prevent such a situation again. We saw mass cancellations of flights in/out of the New York City area and points to the Northeast on Friday and into Saturday morning so airlines wouldn't violate our laws against such problems and the major $$$ penalties from them.

The advisories, such as Airport approaching gridlock, airport is gridlocked no parking spaces available, says it all.

But I suppose for some us on here not involved in aviation, it's just like getting on and off a bus. After 33 years in this industry, I've seen a lot and am always amazed at the ignorance of those that think it's a simple process handling an aircraft and passengers under demanding circumstances, such as was evident yesterday. Good luck to you all.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 34): We saw mass cancellations of flights in/out of the New York City area and points to the Northeast on Friday and into Saturday morning so airlines wouldn't violate our laws against such problems and the major $$$ penalties from them.

Which isn't necessarily better than taking huge delays. Let's say that the plane had come back to the stand at 1030 as it did, and then had to wait an hour for the airport to marshall up some stairs and buses to get the passengers off. They wait around for the rest of the day in the terminal until 10pm, leave again with the new crew, get de-iced and take off at midnight. I'd consider that a perfectly satisfactory result given the conditions, yet in the US there would be fines to pay since they would have been sitting on the plane for 4.5 hours on the first attempt. So the flight would more likely than not have been cancelled, and people would more likely than not have to wait for days to get to where they were going instead of taking a delay of a little less than 24 hours.

Ok and so at my previous job, I once worked a flight from YVR-AMS and our aircraft had a mechanical issue and returned to the gate and the flight was cxld. The passengers were released till the next day and your point is........

Quoting zkokq (Reply 31):Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 30):So you think it was just a normal snow sprinkling? There was meters of snow in some places the news said. That's a challenge I think, considering it last 7 hrs

We're not talking about Brisbane, Perth, London, LA, Miami here...we're talking about a major Candanian city that sees snow and usually prepares for this.

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 39):Unless it was a swing gate no way would CBP let them off the plane.

Yet, we'll never know because the article doesn't state if a call was made by GTAA asking for help.

We all backseat manage, but at the end of the day, 13 hours is just insane.

Flights were taking 4 hours to deice. They could only deice 8 aircraft per hour. Thus they could only land 8 flights per hour when gridlocked. A sharp reduction from the normal 56 arrival rate.

The above occurred roughly 6 hours after the passengers were put on the aircraft. In the previous 6 hours do you think maybe that the plane could have been deplaned by air stairs and bused back to the terminal. YYZ should have done that. I don't like flying out of YYZ but I also don't like an airport that knew what was coming in terms of weather do what they can for an aircraft full of people. In these unusual circumstances, the GTAA could have brought one or two of their buses to the aircraft, so I say they really did drop the ball on this one. I blame the GTAA for not being prepared for this type of situation. They have no excuse for this. What would have happened if during the 13 hours that a medical emergency was taking place and at that time of the height of the snowstorm, then what? "Oh we can't come out to the plane because there is too much traffic. What traffic are you talking about?

Quoting zkokq (Reply 31):So you think it was just a normal snow sprinkling? There was meters of snow in some places the news said. That's a challenge I think, considering it last 7 hrs

Frankly the metres of snow piled up after the flight was loaded at 0630. The still could have gone to the aircraft and removed these people. Please, this was obviously an unusual situation and were there other aircraft in the same situation? If not, how did they deal with those passengers.

I don't know why they were not prepared for this storm. They knew about it 2-3 days out and some people seem to think that it was a surprise. Yeah, you can't predict the weather but they had a general idea this was going to happen.

People need to realize, that those of us directly involved in airport/aircraft operations do not like this any more than pax do. I have had situations where there has been multiple a/c on the ground, with limited staff and equipment to handle it. Some armchair quarterbacks on here are saying....."well get more equipment or people". Well lets see, mine is not the only airline on the airport having a bad day. So I cant go get more equipment from another carrier, let alone my own limited ones. And people. Well all avail. staff were called in and it still was not enough so things started to go from bad to worse. I dont doubt that WG was doing what it could with limited resources. IE: Granola bars and half glasses of water. This is not a full service carrier you know. And the airport getting a bus to take the people back to the terminal? Ok it was an international flight with customers already cleared. That becomes a new issue right there. And where are they going to find the people to drive those buses? It was a major snowstorm. Airport ops was stretched to the limit and people may have had a hard time making it in to help out. There are considerable variations that happen to any situation. Its not just about one airplane, or one persons problem. You are not the only one this is happening to. But alas, this made the news because someone took it to the media. It is very unfortunate that it took 13hrs and I feel for the passengers. But I also feel for the employees that had to deal with not just this a/c but all the other related situations that did not make the news.

JD CRP

ABQ ops, Cactus 202 requesting you order 5 Green Chile Chicken stew for us to p/u on arrival.

Quoting ABQopsHP (Reply 46):It is very unfortunate that it took 13hrs and I feel for the passengers. But I also feel for the employees that had to deal with not just this a/c but all the other related situations that did not make the news.

The difference is, they are being paid to be out there doing a job, being told not to work (and by the way getting paid) yet those folks in the a/c had zero recourse other than to sit and take it.

To quote...

"You have to picture what was going on at the airport. It was chaos — not just for the flights, but everything happening outdoors. On the aprons, on the runways, at times the snow was so heavy maintenance people and baggage people were told they couldn’t work."

Does the airport authority really want to admit it appears they lost control over what was going on?

Quoting ABQopsHP (Reply 46):. And the airport getting a bus to take the people back to the terminal? Ok it was an international flight with customers already cleared. That becomes a new issue right there. And where are they going to find the people to drive those buses? It was a major snowstorm. Airport ops was stretched to the limit and people may have had a hard time making it in to help out.

And if an aircraft had slid off a snowy runway and the passengers needed to be bussed back to the terminal, who would have driven those buses? I guarantee someone would have been found quickly, and it wouldn't have taken 13 hours. Sorry, I'm not buying that excuse.

Quoting ABQopsHP (Reply 46):There are considerable variations that happen to any situation. Its not just about one airplane, or one persons problem. You are not the only one this is happening to.

And yet it seems that this was the only flight that this was happening to. 13 hours is insane.

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 39):Wether or not they should have cancelled is arguable, but most Canadian Charter ops (Canjet, Sunwing, Transat etc) will not cancel their flights because of the contracts with the vacation providers. They will just keep delaying them. For all we know it looked like they had a decent shot at making it out of there.

Which leads me to believe that like most of the crappy things that happen in the airline industry, this all comes down to money. "We're terribly sorry that you've been imprisoned with almost no food or water and limited restroom resources for 13 hours, but violating our vacation contract terms is terribly expensive. Thanks for flying Sunwing"

Quoting ABQopsHP (Reply 46):Well lets see, mine is not the only airline on the airport having a bad day. So I cant go get more equipment from another carrier, let alone my own limited ones. And people.

I'd normally agree with you, except:

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 44):We're not talking about Brisbane, Perth, London, LA, Miami here...we're talking about a major Candanian city that sees snow and usually prepares for this.

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 44):We all backseat manage, but at the end of the day, 13 hours is just insane.

The captain should have raised absolute hell, and demanded a resolution to get passengers off the plane. I cant believe anyone would knowingly allow this to happen. Someone at that airport had the authority to find a solution. As a last resort, I would have deployed a slide.

Quoting Dogbreath (Reply 14):This flight was an international flight with passengers cleared by customs.

Canadian airports don't have border exit controls on international departures, so you do not go through customs at YYZ when you depart for an international flight. You check in, get your boarding pass, go through security and that's it.

The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.

In most major airports non-essential ramp movements are restricted in snowstorms and other visibility reduced conditions so 'Just bussing them off the taxiway' is indeed just a pipedream especially with snow all over the place in addition. Horrible for the passengers, but I tend to think no matter what happened they were going to be stuck there.

Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.

I've worked for a major for 30 years...there's no way a 13 hour hostage situation in this day and age should occur with the focus on this sort of thing. Reading they went BACK to a gate during the storm and still attempted to depart in those horrible conditions was strike number one. Major fail with Sunwing operations in YYZ was strike number two. I'll bet money they contract out their ground service too. The captain of this flight obviously had no balls or they wouldn't have sat there as long as they did. Demand a place to park close to the terminal. Find a friggin' tug with chains on it and tow the plane as close as possible to the terminal. Bring up some stairs and walk the people across the ramp into the terminal. Situation over. Of course I wasn't there but there's no way this should have occured. Heads should roll at YYZ and at Sunwing....but they probably won't.